Dear Wilhelmus,

I am also glad to see you at this Contest!

Thanks for reading my essay and comment.

As for the paradigm problems in Computational mathematics, I cited excerpts from the article Mathematics XXI - a radical paradigm shift. Model, not Algorithm by mathematician A.Narin'yani . The author concludes:

«Computational mathematics in the coming years will radically change the paradigm and move into a new quality.

The main content of Computational mathematics will be the qualitative promotion of several basic closely related components:

-The development of the theory of knowledge representation and the corresponding apparatus for describing Models,...

-Development of modeling technologies, optimization of the process of "functioning of the Model" itself,...

-Development, i.e. expansion and efficiency of the universal procedure for compressing the modeling space to highlight the solution body..."

As for dialectics and the history of its development, I set the task of its rehabilitation as an effective method of solving the key problems of fundamental science, primarily in understanding matter and space, their ontological structure.

I believe that «Model» and «Algorithm» should not be in the dialectical "struggle" for primacy, but should work in a reliable dialectical unity...

As the 60s student song says:

"I know that dialectics will develop everything,

But when I will be gone.

Mankind will have everything

And I would have to get the fire... " (A. Genkin)

I'm already starting to read your essay.

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Hi Wilhelmus,

I recalled the French proverb, clear and distinct, as Cartesius would say: «La nuit porte conseil». The Russian proverb is less accurate: "Morning is wiser than evening"...

Today, when "twilight" has arrived in the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science, there are too many "clouds" in the sky, more than never before, the redirecting "beacons" are important - the philosophical covenants of the great physicists of the past - John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise? '

and Albert Einstein: "At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater degree than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science."

In development of Carlo Rovelli's ideas in the article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics , the motto "Physics, Don't Be Afraid of Metaphysics!" is more relevant than ever before for Physics. Thus, a theoretical physicist, professor at Moscow State University, wrote a very important monograph for physicists, Metaphysics (two editions already) and is editing the scientific journal «Metaphysics», in which you can find many important materials and ideas for overcoming the crisis in the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science.

Vladimir

Dear Wilhelmus,

I think the time has come for a joint Big Global Brainstorming. The FQXi's contests will just accomplish this task. But it is important to select competitive "crazy" ideas aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of Knowledge.

We continue the discussion on your forum ..

Best regards

Vladimir

Respected Prof Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on my essay,

Einstein did not like and support Bigbang based cosmology!!!

I reproduced some of your words of wisdom from "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community?".

.......................Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology....................................

Even after 20 years these concepts are same and they are ruling the world like some dictator ship.....

I was just hoping for the last 35 to 40 years that the funding will be released from dictatorship ,fears will be reduced ad freedom of speech will come into light someday........

I am just waiting..................................................................

Respectfully,

Snp.gupta

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Many thanks! Today, when science, primarily fundamental science, is experiencing a crisis of philosophical foundations, support for research and researchers in at least three alternative areas is needed. And this primarily refers to cosmology. Humanity will not be able to develop steadily when science says that "In the beginning was the "Big Bang"..."...

I wish you success!

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Hereby a copy of the answer I gave on my essay.

Ontological means the metaphysical basis of "being".

Being is a process that is time-related.

In my perception, it is only the past that seems to be time-related and therefore NOT the dimensionless Point Zero.

Ontology is a method of interpretation in our emerged phenomenon reality that leads to attempts to understanding "being".

I hope this explains your question.

best regards

Wilhelmus

    Respected Prof Vladimir,

    Thank you for your post on my essay, here is the reply....

    Wonderful song on hope!!!! The song rightly tells us that in reality we cosmologists are in fog and cold buzzard of dictator ship. This song is appropriate for our situation!!! All the young children are taught about Bigbang, as though it is right. This aspect pinches me......

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

      4 days later

      Vladimir Rogozhin

      I thank you for the depth of thought within your response to my paper.

      Being philosophy, your work is way over my head, but I did read it. It sent me search definitions so often I can say I learned a bit. The context recalls the World of Math by James Newman, some of which I barely remember. Anyway I can only comment on conclusions. I do relate to your concern with education as you reference the need of more philosophy thinking from 1st grade on just as I claim need for more thorough education about space. Logic, and the universe.

      As intended, there is much philosophy in this contest. The terminology and history of philosophy are hard to follow and bypass my mind. Somehow my attempt to just apply logic seems to stand outside the world of thought which is attended by philosophers. Clearly someone such as yourself is needed to transfer my logic points into an overview philosophy of the universe.

      Best regards,

      Paul Schroeder

        Dear Paul,

        Thanks so much for reading my essay and appreciation. Yes, a true understanding of the structure of space (ontological structure) is the key to the uncertainties of modern fundamental science. As never before today, the philosophical covenant of Paul Florensky is relevant: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding." The question of logic - I agree. But what kind of logic is the original, generating, "logic of all logics" - the logic on which the Universe speaks to us.

        Regards,

        Vladimir

        5 days later

        Vladimir,

        Excellent job! yet again. We both identify the philosophical foundation problem as key to current limitations. You dialectics review was thorough and interesting, adding context and support to my ontological viewpoint and very physical dialectic (and trialectic) solutions to our unknowns.

        I was amused by your last line as I consider most current philosophies as at a level 'for children'. I think it a great idea, as long as we can clean away all the illogical nonsense first! I think only young minds are really able to assimilate fresh concepts as most older ones have older doctrine embedded ready to reject anything that doesn't match. It seems you and I are of the few Vladimir! Most bloggers also have their own 'wares to sell' and aren't there to 'buy' anew.

        I do hope we're truly at last 'in crisis' and at a crossroads, but sadly most I find still unaware of any problems in doctrinal thinking. I'm often told by those not even bothering to read my work ; "don't try to fix what isn't broken". Yet we know we must have strength and persist. Your uplifting essay helped that. Thank you. Top score down to that as well! ..and also for reminding me of Russels' perfect comment on Godel.

        2 Points; You don't bring in South Asias 'Ying and Yang' Do you not see that as of valid dialectic import?

        Lastly Your text layout may please you and doesn't worry me, but I say as last year, it's unconventionality makes reading hard for most and must cost you scoring places. If that matters. English is a poor enough language already in so many ways!

        But brilliant and important content Vladimir. I take a different approach, diving straight to the foundations of philosophy (so logic and all else) challenge them, offer alternatives and show the powerful outcomes of using them! Likely far to much for most to take but I have comfort you'll appreciate the signpost it gives at that crossroads. I seem to simply send the horse left and head right.

        I much look forward to your comments and discussions.

        Peter

        PS; If you don't rush though mine you should find TWIN dialectic pairs rule my spherical surface momenta of spinning Majorana fermions, the smallest case of condensed matter, and Trialectics in the 3 axes of rotations only spheres can have without momentum conservation issues.

          Dear Peter,

          Thank you very much for kind and deep comment. Indeed, only new generations can possibly overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of science. Today, there are not enough "crazy" dialectical-ontological ideas. Let's hope that little philosophers from new schools with the subject "Philosophy" will be able to look at "space" and "matter" in a different way than modern physics tells us. A space without "curvature" and "big bang", the same for physics and the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). And without fear of metaphysics and dialectics, they will complete the Big Ontological coup in the philosophical basis of science, which began sometime more than a hundred years ago by Planck and Einstein. It is already obvious that the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of knowledge, the epics of the "great unification", string theories make it necessary to introduce an additional Ontological standard for justification(basification) of theories that claim to be called "fundamental".

          As for the symbol "Yin / Yang" and the symbol of the Primordial generating structure (Basic structure). I believe that the symbol "Ying / Yang" represents Hegelian dialectics - "unity and struggle of opposites". The symbol of the Basic structure represents a deeper dialectic and ontology of matter in the spirit of Plato and Cuzansky: "Logos" ("Law of the Triunity", "Law of laws) 竊' "coincidence of ontological opposites" + becoming 竊' Synthesis as a triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) .

          As for the translation, this was done by me with the help of Google and Yandex translators. So for now, so-called "artificial quasi-intelligence" works. But they already translate better than before. I hope and dream that once the contests for new generations will be in Esperanto. I believe that the main thing for the FQXi's contests is the ideas of the participants. These are good global brainstorming sessions on fundamental questions.. I agree completely with you: Yet we know we must have strength and persist.

          I'm starting to read your essay with interest.

          Yours faithfully, Vladimir

          7 days later

          Dear Vladimir

          Let's continue our discussion here:

          - And which mathematical constants are more fundamental?

          If aliens more advanced than us came to Earth, they would surely know more of the discovered mathematical constants than we do. So these constants are more fundamental than invented mathematics. I already mentioned the fundamental discovered mathematical constants in the previous answer: 2, 2pi, e, exp(i*pi), exp (2 * pi) and log2 (2pi). I can add more: number 3, golden ratio.

          And how many are there? There are countless more, probably all prime numbers. You can find many on the Internet yourself.

          And what do they tell us about the structure of the Universe?

          If you carefully observe my table in 2015 Trick or Truth contest, you will realize that it mathematically explain the same image used for the Big Bang.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang , (Timeline of the metric expansion of space). So we don't need Big Bang, we only need discovered mathematics.

          What is the ontological status of these SUPER CONSTANT (their nature?)?

          In one sentence, they were derived from nature. It is not called constant e the basis of the natural logarithm for no reason.

          You say: The starting point of the Pythagorean dialectic is also the idea of opposites. I have noticed that modern physicist do not applie opposites. If you read my essays carefully you will see that I have applied opposites in physics.

          Everything I said cannot work if you are not able to check the last five formulas in my essay.

          Regards Branko

            Dear Branko,

            Thanks so much for your comment! I'm glad you are back in the forum. I watched every day from March 18, but you weren't and weren't on the forum. ..

            I will clarify my question:

            What do SUPER CONSTANTS say about the ontological (primordial) structure of the Universe? According to your model of the Universe - how many SUPER CONSTANTS (ontological constants) determine and reflect the ontological (primordial) structure of the Universe without the "Big Bang»? In my model, there are three super constants (ontological). This determines the principle of the triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). The principle of the triune is a rigid link between the mathematical and physical structure, their ontological unity.

            As for the equations, I exclude their consideration, since any equation is a "clipping" from the being of the Universe as an holistic process of generating meanings and structures. The paradigm of the world (Universe) as a whole (ontological paradigm) should come to the aid of the paradigm of the part (atomistic, phenomenological). It is paradigm of the world (Universe) as a whole makes it possible to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science.

            With best regards, Vladimir

            Dear Branko,

            The model (eidos) of the Metalaw of the Universum (Logos = "Law of laws") is an ontological equilateral "celestial triangle" (Plato) of three bivectors that represent three absolute (unconditional) forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The vertices of a triangle are the places where the minima and maxima of states coincide. The angles of a triangle are ontological super constants. But I don't know which ones ... Therefore, I want to understand super constants together with you ... Of course, after you read my essay, ask more questions and give critical comments.

            With best regards, Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir

            Interestingly, I found your article:

            The Paradigm of the Part VS The Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure

            Vladimir I. Rogozhin ideabank@yandex.ru August 05, 2012

            Because my theory is called "Unity of the whole and the parts."

            If you just read my articles you would see that my relationships among physical values resulted from Newton's, Kepler's, Plank's, partly Einstein's works...

            I would also refer you to my friend prof. Dragoslav Stoiljković, who starts some articles with Engels' views on attraction and repulsion, and through the philosophical views of Leibniz, Hegel comes to the application in the polymer industry. I think that his path is the right way to apply philosophy. The very fact that I have applied the results of the aforementioned greats of science means that I have largely accepted their philosophical views as well.

            It is not up to me to apply your philosophical views to my theory, but it is up to you to refute or confirm my prediction with your philosophy.

            Instead of SUPER CONSTANTS it may be better to use SUPER MATHEMATICS, which are logarithms, exponents, Euler formula, Opposites, and other rather neglected applications of mathematics in physics. Of course SUPER MATHEMATICS usually contain SUPER CONSTANTS (For example some Planck equations).

            Regards Branko